JUDGMENT : 1. The claimant is the appellant. The land belonging to the claimant was acquired as per Section 4 (1) Notification dated 30/01/2008 under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for widening of road. According to the Land Acquisition Officer, only 0.11 ares was acquired from the claimant. According to the claimant 0.30 ares was acquired from him. The Land Acquisition Officer passed Award granting compensation for 0.11 ares and the building therein fixing land value @ Rs.4,75,248/- per Are building value at Rs.58,177/- . 2. The claimant sought reference under Section 18 with respect to the extent of land and the compensation. The Reference Court awarded compensation fixing land value @ Rs.25,30,000/- per Are, relying on Ext.A1 judgment of the same Court in L.A.R. No.200/2009. The Reference Court found that there is no evidence to hold that 0.30 Ares was acquired from the claimant. Thus the claim of the claimant for compensation for 0.19 Ares of land was denied. Though the claimant produced Ext.A2 Commission Report which includes the Valuation of the building and examined AW2/Engineer who prepared the Valuation Report, the Reference Court refused to rely on the same and did not award any additional compensation for the building value. As per Ext.A2, the value of the building is assessed at Rs.16,02,600/- by AW2. 3. The appeal is filed against refusal to grant compensation for 0.19 Ares and enhancement for the building value. 4. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri. S.K.Adityan and the learned Sr. Government Pleader Smt.Rekha C. Nair. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that Ext.A2(a) would prove that 0.30 Ares was taken possession from the claimant. The Reference Court acted illegally in grating compensation for the entire 0.30 ares of land. In view of Ext.A2 Valuation Report proved by AW2/Chartered Engineer, the Reference Court ought to have granted building value relying on the same. AW2 specifically deposed that the said building was inspected before demolition. The evidence of AW2 was not effectively challenged by the respondents. 6. On the other hand, the learned Sr. Government Pleader contended that more than 0.11 ares was taken possession from the claimant. Ext.A2(a) plan shows 0.30 ares, but that does not mean the said extent was taken possession from the claimant. Ext.A2 Valuation Report could not be relied fixing the building value. The rate which is applied by the Engineer is not stated. Government Pleader contended that more than 0.11 ares was taken possession from the claimant. Ext.A2(a) plan shows 0.30 ares, but that does not mean the said extent was taken possession from the claimant. Ext.A2 Valuation Report could not be relied fixing the building value. The rate which is applied by the Engineer is not stated. It is not clear whether the building is situated in 0.11 Ares of land acquired from the claimant or 0.30 Ares of land which is claimed to have acquired from the claimant. The age of the building is not correctly assessed. The depreciation was not deducted. It is seen that the said report was obtained in another suit, O.S. No.1012/2009. The said Report could not be taken for evidence in the present reference. 7. I have considered the rival contentions. 8. The first question to be considered in this appeal is the extent of land acquired from the claimant. The acquisition records would show that only 0.11 Ares of land was acquired from the claimant. There is nothing on record other than Ext.A2(a) plan to show the extent is 0.30 Ares. Relying on Ext.A2(a) plan, it could not be said that the extend covered by the said Plan was taken into possession by the respondents. Hence, the Reference Court was right in holding that only 0.11 Ares of land was acquired and taken possession from the claimant. It is not a case that 0.30 Ares was taken possession by the respondents and only 0.11 Ares was valued by the Land Acquisition Officer. In the absence of any evidence regarding the taking of possession of the land in excess of 0.11 land, the claim of the appellant that excess land was taken from the possession of appellant could not be found in his favour. 9. In order to prove the value of the building, the claimant relies on Ext.A2 Valuation Report and the evidence of AW2. On going through Ext.A2, it is seen that AW2 Chartered Engineer inspected the building before demolition and prepared the Valuation Report. The Chartered Engineer specifically stated that the valuation is undertaken based on the cost of construction of an identical existing building as replacement value as on 2008. Assessment of replacement value is not the correct valuation. The Engineer ought to have assessed the cost of construction, age of the building and the depreciation for the age. The Chartered Engineer specifically stated that the valuation is undertaken based on the cost of construction of an identical existing building as replacement value as on 2008. Assessment of replacement value is not the correct valuation. The Engineer ought to have assessed the cost of construction, age of the building and the depreciation for the age. The Engineer could not assess the exact age of the building. The age of the building is roughly assessed as not less than 20 years. It would show that the building was an old one. He has stated that the building has been modified from time to time incorporating most modern amenities. But he has not detailed the said modification and modern amenities in the Report. The rate adopted by the Chartered Engineer is not disclosed in the report. It is stated that the rate provided for the items are based on local rates prevailing in 2008 and his experience and knowledge in the field is based for calculating the same. It would indicate that he has not taken the rate of any approved agency for the purpose of valuing the building. That apart, as rightly pointed out by the learned Sr. Government Pleader it is not clear whether the building is situated in the acquired land of 0.11 Ares or in the remaining land of 0.19 Ares claimed to have taken possession from the claimant. The Reference File contains a Certificate that the structures mentioned in the acquired land have been verified and after deducting depreciation, the net value comes to Rs.58,177/-. The details as to how the said value arrived at is not shown in the certificate. The said Certificate is signed by an Executive Engineer without name and seal and without showing the department or institution. The certificate is not even dated. The said Certificate shows that part of the two storied building. It would indicate that only a part of the two storied building which is situated in the acquired portion alone is assessed. The respondents have also not examined the person who has issued the said certificate to prove the same. Hence, the said Certificate relied by the respondents is also not acceptable. It would indicate that only a part of the two storied building which is situated in the acquired portion alone is assessed. The respondents have also not examined the person who has issued the said certificate to prove the same. Hence, the said Certificate relied by the respondents is also not acceptable. Considering the valuation of the building at Rs.16,02,600/- in Ext.A2 and considering the valuation of the part of the two storied building at Rs.58,177/- in the said Certificate, on a guess work, I am of the view that the claimant can be awarded an additional compensation of Rs.58,177/- towards the value of the building in this appeal. 10. Accordingly, I allow this appeal in part, with proportionate costs, granting the an additional compensation of Rs.58,177/- to the claimant with all statutory benefits and interest ordered by the Reference Court, on the said amount.